Hatred of Christianity!

[cablescavenger]

Suppose some nation governed by fundamentalists gets nuclear weapons and seeks to bring about the end of the world and the coming of their messiah by blowing up their neighbors. In a hypothetical like that, which is the greater cause? Religion or science? I don't think it matters. Both are enablers. We certainly should not discount the influence of the one simply because the influence of the other is also present.

There is only one country that has used nuclear weapons during warfare, and on innocent civilians, without impunity, and it is highly religious:
Nuclear weapons and the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[fallingblood]

it's about time? You do know Christianity has been being challenged since the days of Christ, right?

Yes, it was challenged for a little while. However, for the vast majority of time, Christianity has dominated. It is foolish to act as if Christianity has been under challenge for millennia, as it simply hasn't.

And really, it should have been challenged a lot more in the past. If it had, we wouldn't have such lame excuses for atrocities that were committed in the name of Christianity. And there would have been so much justification of evil acts by saying that Christianity supported it or the Bible did.

Christianity needs to be challenged, and forced to change (there are some branches that are already questioning their doctrines, and changing for the better. I see the ELCA being a great example, by allowing openly gay ministers). If it doesn't change, it will die. There is no more use in defending the atrocious acts committed in the name of Christianity. And there is no more use in using Christianity to justify an intolerance. It needs to change. And if that means that others have to challenge it (respectfully. If it isn't challenged respectfully, it will cause more to become defensive, and thus more problems), then I hope it is challenged greatly. I know I for one will do just that.

 

[fallingblood]

There is only one country that has used nuclear weapons during warfare, and on innocent civilians, without impunity, and it is highly religious:
Nuclear weapons and the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Come on. You can't ignore the context in which the nuclear weapons were used, and then claim it has something to do with religion. That is garbage, and ridiculous.

The U.S. using nuclear weapons has nothing to do with the religious aspect here (the U.S. is not a religious country by the way. Yes, it may have a lot of religious people, but it is not a religious country. There is a difference).

 

[fallingblood]

First I'll let you catch up, before we get around to that. And I'll be glad to see your counter evidence when I give my reference.

I'm not really sure where you are responding to me. I tried looking over your quote, but it just is congested, and difficult to navigate through.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

it's about time? You do know Christianity has been being challenged since the days of Christ, right?

For most of the history of Christianity, these "challenges" have been pushback against complete Christian domination. Christianity has held a privileged position, has had unparalleled influence, and reaped unparalleled reward for nearly two thousand years.

 

[cablescavenger]

Come on. You can't ignore the context in which the nuclear weapons were used, and then claim it has something to do with religion. That is garbage, and ridiculous.

The U.S. using nuclear weapons has nothing to do with the religious aspect here (the U.S. is not a religious country by the way. Yes, it may have a lot of religious people, but it is not a religious country. There is a difference).

I don't remember saying that it did have anything to do with religion.

You used the example "Suppose some nation governed by fundamentalists gets nuclear weapons..." and I put forward the observation. It is not there to offend you.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why do so many people want to point the finger at Christianity for the evil done in its name instead of pointing the finger at the human heart? Pointing the finger at Christians is the same as pointing the finger at scientists saying look how evil science is pushing these drugs that can destroy lives on every T.V. comercial that pops up.

Christianity claims to have God's message. In so doing, it also claims enhanced levels of responsibility and demands a corresponding level of criticism.

 

[cablescavenger]

Cause New Year day isnt "holy?"

Thank you

 

[cablescavenger]

because it is...


i think it has to do with the notion that this country was based on christian principles...just the idea that a country is founded on christianity is not what jesus was talking about...
seems as though christians want to avoid being persecuted for their faith all together by setting up this self defeating idea when christ told them they would get their reward in heaven for being persecuted.

the last shall be first...
blessed are the meek for they will inherit the earth...
so if one doesn't have the opportunity to be meek then they aren't accountable for not being meek...

Thank you

 

[fallingblood]

I don't remember saying that it did have anything to do with religion.

You used the example "Suppose some nation governed by fundamentalists gets nuclear weapons..." and I put forward the observation. It is not there to offend you.

I didn't use such an example. And I may have been acting rash; however, I don't see why it matters that the only country that has used nuclear weapons is a supposedly "religious" one. It may have just been how I read it, but I just don't see why it matters that it was a religious country that did.

 

[cablescavenger]

I didn't use such an example. And I may have been acting rash; however, I don't see why it matters that the only country that has used nuclear weapons is a supposedly "religious" one. It may have just been how I read it, but I just don't see why it matters that it was a religious country that did.

There needs to be a paradigm shift in thinking. Acceptance and dialogue is the only way forward, we are one united nation on earth now, there is no us and them. That will be the new paradigm or globalisation will not work. Even religion is changing to accommodate the global community.

 

[kaknelson]

I'm not trying to deny, I am flat out denying. There simply is no historical evidence of such a thing. For instance, when Christians went underground (for a relatively short period), they left us with a huge amount of evidence that they still were around.

And now we have a Hellenistic tradition (again, which one) that supposedly remained underground for over a millennia, yet shows no such evidence of having existed. Instead, we see evidence for the tradition dying out, and then later on being reconstructed. And really, that makes the most logical sense as we have seen a recent resurgence of reconstructed religions. It falls under neopaganism.
I don't doubt you exist. In fact, I have heard quite a bit of a reconstructed Hellenistic religion. However, there simply is not much history to it.
I know quite a bit about Hellenistic religions. I have studied Hellenistic religions for quite a bit of time now simply for a better understanding of the world that surrounded Jesus and Early Christianity. I also know quite a bit about the recreational religions that have emerged in the last few decades. I also know that they don't have any real evidence showing that they are a continuation from the old religions, especially when most members are not even practicing the religion like the ancients did.
If you want people to believe that the gods have always been worshipped (it is a small g for gods. God refers to one specific god), you need to show evidence.

And I am sorry for your experiences with some Christians. However, insulting them all simply is ridiculous.

There is no historical evidence because you Christians burnt all our records and destroyed all our temples and killed all our priests by the 8th century. Hmm I wonder why there is no historical evidence. Any person who would have declared himself a follower of our Gods after that period would be considered a heretic and be burnt at the steak at once which you so called followers of the Prince of Peace seem to be good at doing, that is burning heretics witches

I am part of the Hellenic tradition, you are not so trying to tell me my faith has never existed after your cult became supreme is useless. I have heard of oral songs around villages by Mt Olympus and other folklore which is not written down. Plus I told you about my freinds lineages. We, the worshippers of the Gods and the nympths and dryads have always existed. I am sorry you can't understand this but perhaps your christian intolerance is blinding you from this fact.

We have tons of things written about the Rites of the 12, to call it "reconstructionist" is pretty misleading since it never has really changed except most of us don't sacrifice animals anymore.

I am sorry but your posts are not convincing me that Christians are not arrogant. You all try to convince us that if we don't believe in your man god then we will go to hell, which was obviously stolen from our concept of tartarus to encourage the people to convert to your overblown cult. However its not convincing anymore people are waking up

 

[fallingblood]

There is no historical evidence because you Christians burnt all our records and destroyed all our temples and killed all our priests by the 8th century. Hmm I wonder why there is no historical evidence. Any person who would have declared himself a follower of our Gods after that period would be considered a heretic and be burnt at the steak at once which you so called followers of the Prince of Peace seem to be good at doing, that is burning heretics witches

Yes, because I love killing and destroying any and all religious ideas that are not mine. Please.

We have evidence of Hellenistic religions up to maybe the 8th century. That is quite some time after some Christians started persecuting other beliefs (key being here some Christians. Not all Christians were interested in doing such, and in fact, some Christians were also persecuted). We have evidence that they survived those long years of persecution, and yet we are to believe that over a millennia, there simply is no evidence?

Generally, when a religion goes underground, there is still evidence that they existed. There is some type of historical evidence. Continued persecution, art work, literary works, something. Yet, for the Hellenistic religions (again, there are a number of different religions), there is nothing until relatively recently, when we also see a resurgence of a variety of other recreational religions.

And again, even with those other religious ideas that some Christians persecuted, we still see evidence that they existed.

If you can provide some evidence that they did continue to exist for over a millennia, I would be happy to see it. However, with out some type of actual evidence, I see it as nothing else than one more recreational religion. Which isn't necessary a bad thing.

I am part of the Hellenic tradition, you are not so trying to tell me my faith has never existed after your cult became supreme is useless. I have heard of oral songs around villages by Mt Olympus and other folklore which is not written down. Plus I told you about my freinds lineages. We, the worshippers of the Gods and the nympths and dryads have always existed. I am sorry you can't understand this but perhaps your christian intolerance is blinding you from this fact.

First, Christianity isn't a cult. You need to actually use words within their definitions. Your pitiful attacks simply are foolish. And again, trying to include me on the blame, by stating that it is my cult simply is ridiculous. It is a baseless attack, that only shows your ignorance as to what my religion is.

As for the oral songs, that really doesn't show anything besides people repeating myths. It doesn't mean they believe in that stuff, it is simply part of their culture. Even in the west, we write and talk about Greek folklore. We even study the mythology, but it doesn't mean we accept it as fact. There is a huge difference here.

As for the lineage. There are people who also trace their lineage all the way back to Jesus. It doesn't mean it is true. I have also seen people who trace their lineage back to obscure individuals, with very little basis for such. Even better, we have two genealogies in the NT for Jesus that trace him back to King David. Again, doesn't mean they are correct. Unless it can be certified, by real historians or the like, then I see little reason to accept it as credible. Especially when I can make a lineage up very easily.

As for intolerance. False. And calling it Christian intolerance is silly. I have no problem with you worshipping your gods. I have no problem with you holding the belief that they are the same gods as ancients practiced (and I don't doubt that). What I don't accept is that your religion has survived, uninterrupted, into modern times. As there simply is not enough evidence for such.

We have tons of things written about the Rites of the 12, to call it "reconstructionist" is pretty misleading since it never has really changed except most of us don't sacrifice animals anymore.

That is kind of a big change. More so, much of the Hellenistic religions, or at least various ones, were never written down. They were "mystery" religions for a reason. And again, there were a number of different Hellenistic religions throughout the time.

And to call it a reconstructionist isn't misleading. One would expect that the followers of a reconstructionist religion would use ancient sources in order to try to make their religion as similar as the ancient form.

I am sorry but your posts are not convincing me that Christians are not arrogant. You all try to convince us that if we don't believe in your man god then we will go to hell, which was obviously stolen from our concept of tartarus to encourage the people to convert to your overblown cult. However its not convincing anymore people are waking up

We all? Who are you talking about? I don't believe Jesus was a god. I don't believe you will go to hell, or anyone else will go to hell. So really, you have no idea what I believe, or really anything about a lot of Christianity.

As for Jesus being stolen from your concepts, no. That is so far off of historically being accurate that it is hard to even laugh at. There is no doubt that Jesus was a historical figure. And really, the vast majority of people reject the conspiracy theory that you are proposing.

And again, Christianity is not a cult. To label it as such is ignorant, and a ridiculous attack.

As for you seeing Christians as arrogant, that's fine.

 

[kaknelson]

Yes, because I love killing and destroying any and all religious ideas that are not mine. Please.

We have evidence of Hellenistic religions up to maybe the 8th century. That is quite some time after some Christians started persecuting other beliefs (key being here some Christians. Not all Christians were interested in doing such, and in fact, some Christians were also persecuted). We have evidence that they survived those long years of persecution, and yet we are to believe that over a millennia, there simply is no evidence?

Generally, when a religion goes underground, there is still evidence that they existed. There is some type of historical evidence. Continued persecution, art work, literary works, something. Yet, for the Hellenistic religions (again, there are a number of different religions), there is nothing until relatively recently, when we also see a resurgence of a variety of other recreational religions.

And again, even with those other religious ideas that some Christians persecuted, we still see evidence that they existed.

If you can provide some evidence that they did continue to exist for over a millennia, I would be happy to see it. However, with out some type of actual evidence, I see it as nothing else than one more recreational religion. Which isn't necessary a bad thing.
First, Christianity isn't a cult. You need to actually use words within their definitions. Your pitiful attacks simply are foolish. And again, trying to include me on the blame, by stating that it is my cult simply is ridiculous. It is a baseless attack, that only shows your ignorance as to what my religion is.

As for the oral songs, that really doesn't show anything besides people repeating myths. It doesn't mean they believe in that stuff, it is simply part of their culture. Even in the west, we write and talk about Greek folklore. We even study the mythology, but it doesn't mean we accept it as fact. There is a huge difference here.

As for the lineage. There are people who also trace their lineage all the way back to Jesus. It doesn't mean it is true. I have also seen people who trace their lineage back to obscure individuals, with very little basis for such. Even better, we have two genealogies in the NT for Jesus that trace him back to King David. Again, doesn't mean they are correct. Unless it can be certified, by real historians or the like, then I see little reason to accept it as credible. Especially when I can make a lineage up very easily.

As for intolerance. False. And calling it Christian intolerance is silly. I have no problem with you worshipping your gods. I have no problem with you holding the belief that they are the same gods as ancients practiced (and I don't doubt that). What I don't accept is that your religion has survived, uninterrupted, into modern times. As there simply is not enough evidence for such.
That is kind of a big change. More so, much of the Hellenistic religions, or at least various ones, were never written down. They were "mystery" religions for a reason. And again, there were a number of different Hellenistic religions throughout the time.

And to call it a reconstructionist isn't misleading. One would expect that the followers of a reconstructionist religion would use ancient sources in order to try to make their religion as similar as the ancient form.
We all? Who are you talking about? I don't believe Jesus was a god. I don't believe you will go to hell, or anyone else will go to hell. So really, you have no idea what I believe, or really anything about a lot of Christianity.

As for Jesus being stolen from your concepts, no. That is so far off of historically being accurate that it is hard to even laugh at. There is no doubt that Jesus was a historical figure. And really, the vast majority of people reject the conspiracy theory that you are proposing.

And again, Christianity is not a cult. To label it as such is ignorant, and a ridiculous attack.

As for you seeing Christians as arrogant, that's fine.

What a hilarious untruthful post, I will reply to it after work

 

[fallingblood]

What a hilarious untruthful post, I will reply to it after work

In your next response, could you also show some evidence for your position? And please refrain from calling it "your cult" "your Christianity" or anything similar. That simply is a foolish attack.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm not really sure where you are responding to me. I tried looking over your quote, but it just is congested, and difficult to navigate through.

Yes, sorry, the formatting here gave me some issues, I redid the post, back a page or two.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

OK! I think I got this formatting crap figured out now....

Yes, because I love killing and destroying any and all religious ideas that are not mine. Please.

==Whether you personally love it is irrelevant; the faith we are discussing has in fact been guilty of all those things. He appears to be making a comment about the general Christian attitude, which some of your posts seem to at least mimic.

As for the oral songs, that really doesn't show anything besides people repeating myths. It doesn't mean they believe in that stuff, it is simply part of their culture. Even in the west, we write and talk about Greek folklore. We even study the mythology, but it doesn't mean we accept it as fact. There is a huge difference here.

Judaism was the same, for a great many years. Please cease shifting goalposts. Also, making the statement about whether we accept them as fact or not is non sequitir.

That is kind of a big change. [Yet not an actual substantive change. I can say the same concerning Norse faiths.] More so, much of the Hellenistic religions, or at least various ones, were never written down. They were "mystery" religions for a reason. And again, there were a number of different Hellenistic religions throughout the time.

I find it interesting, in a way bordering on the dishonest, that here you state plainly that finding fully written evidence of his faith is unlikely for several reasons; then, you simultaneously DEMAND he produce written evidence.

And again, Christianity is not a cult. To label it as such is ignorant, and a ridiculous attack.

Actually it does fit the definitions just fine.
You are simply reacting emotionally to the political implications of the word 'cult'.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't mean a physical attack. Personally, I think Christianity needs to be challenged, and it is about time.

However, I also don't see Christianity actually going out and vandalizing or picketing anything. I do see some Christians doing so, but they hardly speak for Christianity as a whole. We can look at the Westboro Baptist church. They are attacking people (including other Christians). However, they hardly speak for Christianity, especially considering that many Christians, even those who oppose homosexuality, oppose the Westboro Baptist church as well.

On a side note though, there are some attacks against Church property and the like.

One of the interesting aspects of being such a large and diverse organization, is that one can disavow the actions of others in the organization.

However, let's consider that the WBC are using their faith as the impetus and excuse, for what they do.

Over its long history, this has been a trend. Does every single one do it? No, of course not. But the perfection fallacy is not needed to prove this point. As a general whole, Christianity can be interpreted to support the activities we hold it responsible for, in this case.

Consider this: let's assume for a second that, independent of their Christianity, the members of the WBC, even the kids, all of them, are simply extremely nasty human beings, possibly insane, or sociopathic. Without the convenient, partially written, partiall interpretive, package that is Christianity, would they be as free to do what they do? Would their dented psyches be able to piece together enough of an excuse to go out in public, and do what they do. Honestly, I do not think so.

 

[fallingblood]

One of the interesting aspects of being such a large and diverse organization, is that one can disavow the actions of others in the organization.

However, let's consider that the WBC are using their faith as the impetus and excuse, for what they do.

Over its long history, this has been a trend. Does every single one do it? No, of course not. But the perfection fallacy is not needed to prove this point. As a general whole, Christianity can be interpreted to support the activities we hold it responsible for, in this case.

Consider this: let's assume for a second that, independent of their Christianity, the members of the WBC, even the kids, all of them, are simply extremely nasty human beings, possibly insane, or sociopathic. Without the convenient, partially written, partiall interpretive, package that is Christianity, would they be as free to do what they do? Would their dented psyches be able to piece together enough of an excuse to go out in public, and do what they do. Honestly, I do not think so.

I will give you that hiding behind Christianity allows people to get away with more. Hiding behind any religion or supposed religion will get you away with more. That is something that must change with the United States itself.

However, what one group does should not reflect on another. The WBC is an extremist view, and is denounced by many Christians. I do think that other Christians should do something more though. For me, I find the WBC to be embarrassing, and a tarnish to Christianity. Because even though I should not be judged by what other Christians do, it happens quite often.

Christians just need to stand up and fight back. They need to show that what some fringe group is saying does not define Christianity, and they should try to make it known that the disgusting actions of one group are really confined to that one group (I know that anti-homosexuality extends further than the WBC, but they have taken it to another level. There are others along those same lines, Pat Robertson comes to mind, and really, they all needed to be treated in the same fashion).

So really, I don't think that what one group does should reflect necessarily on another. However, I also don't think Christians should just stand around and do nothing when their religion is being used for such disgusting actions.

 

[fallingblood]

==Whether you personally love it is irrelevant; the faith we are discussing has in fact been guilty of all those things. He appears to be making a comment about the general Christian attitude, which some of your posts seem to at least mimic.

I don't think the general Christian attitude is to destroy all and everything that disagrees with them. Yes, there are some out there that would, and throughout history we have seen that happen. But now, I don't think many are looking to do that.

Also, there were factors in why Christians attacked all other beliefs. It was in part a backlash from their persecution. It doesn't make it right, and is not an excuse, but there are more factors to consider. And I find it hypocritical that one would accuse Christians of doing something, when that same Hellenistic idea did the same thing to Christians (on a smaller scale, but it was still there).

And honestly, I don't care if he has this belief. I don't care if he worships the Greek gods. It doesn't bother me, and I wouldn't want to destroy it. My problem is simply a historical one. There is no evidence that his beliefs existed continually through the ages. Honestly, if they did, I would be happy. One, it would be a great research opportunity. But, there simply is no evidence of that.

Judaism was the same, for a great many years. Please cease shifting goalposts. Also, making the statement about whether we accept them as fact or not is non sequitir.

I'm not shifting goalposts. I'm simply saying that just because people continue with oral stories, that doesn't mean they believe them or that they continue to worship those gods. The fact that we in the West even continue telling those stories would show that it is not true to say that just because someone continues with such a story it means they believe them.

It really is not a good argument. Especially when we can see that the myth is attached to the culture itself. I know a few Greeks who love the myth, but are Christians, or atheists.

I find it interesting, in a way bordering on the dishonest, that here you state plainly that finding fully written evidence of his faith is unlikely for several reasons; then, you simultaneously DEMAND he produce written evidence.

I was only saying that forms of Hellenistic religion never wrote anything down, such as the mystery religions. Others, did in fact write things down. And even the mystery religions left us with enough to know that they existed.

And I am not demanding written evidence. I am demanding evidence. For instance, when the Christian church went underground (for a relatively short time), we see evidence of that. We have artwork that tells stories. That would be more than enough to support his claim. And in the course of over a millennia, one would expect something. Maybe no actual writings (but probably some) but artwork, or some type of archeological evidence. Something.

I am also curious as to which Hellenistic religion his is supposed to be a continuation of.

Actually it does fit the definitions just fine.
You are simply reacting emotionally to the political implications of the word 'cult'.

Actually it does not fit the definition fine. Christianity was a cult. However, it is a now a religion. There is a distinct difference. Calling Christianity a cult simply is just trying to discredit it.